Hate Crime Victim or Something Else?

“On Tuesday morning, black, openly gay actor Jussie Smollett — best known for his work on the Fox show “Empire” — was horrifically assaulted in Chicago by two men carrying a noose and a possible “chemical substance.” The Boston Globe reports:

Smollett, 35, was walking on the 300th block of E. North Lower Water Street around 2 a.m. local time on Tuesday, “when two unknown offenders approached him and gained his attention by yelling out racial and homophobic slurs towards him,” the Chicago Police Department said in a statement to The Washington Post. ‘”The offenders began to batter the victim with their hands about the face and poured an unknown chemical substance on the victim.”

The police could not confirm the gender of the offenders nor identify the chemical substance.

Following the terrible attack, Smollett is now recovering and is in “good condition” at Northwestern Hospital….” END

Say, did anyone notice this piece reads like a statement of fact? There was no “alleged assaulted” or “he said he was assaulted,” but rather, “Smollet…. was horrifically assaulted in Chicago.” Gee, have we just seen The Boston Globe take a step beyond journalism and into fake news reporting for the sake of sensationalism?

I’m sorry, but I am not prepared to go as far as the Globe until there is actual proof of an attack. And so far, if there is any proof, the media hasn’t reported it and Chicago PD isn’t releasing it.

However, what I have learned is quite curious. Smollet attended an event for Kamala Harris (presidential candidate). She was attempting to take a California law and make it a federal law, but she was losing support. Here’s Harris’ pitch, “There is no place for prejudice against people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender in our country. The so-called gay and trans ‘panic’ defense allows people carry out hate crimes and denies justice to the victims of those crimes. I was proud to be part of the effort to outlaw it in California and am committed to banning it nationwide.”

Smollet’s presence at the Harris rally and then just days later, the alleged attack on him by two people of unknown gender and race, using racial and homophobic slurs, putting a noose around his neck, knocking him around and spraying or pouring an unknown chemical on him and…. and saying, “this is MAGA country” has drawn new attention to said legislation.

Does this seem at all too convenient, too perfect, too well timed? The alleged attack sure touches all the right bases that would tend to foster supporter for the Harris legislation.

Chicago PD has been pouring over surveillance video in the area, but has not seen anyone they could connect to the alleged attack, and they did not see the attack either. Curiously, Smollet said he was talking to his manager at the time on his cell phone and his manager heard the attackers. So Chicago PD asked for his phone for supportive evidence, but Smollet refused to give it up?

Next, Chicago is not even remotely considered MAGA country, so why was this allegedly said by the attackers? It seems bizarre. Even more bizarre, why would two alleged attackers be roaming the streets of Chicago at 2 . a.m. carrying a bottle of an unknown liquid that does no damage when sprayed or poured on a person? And why the noose, that’s rather odd too? And what an amazing coincidence they just happen to single out Smollet, a person who has a vested interest in promoting support for Harris and her anti-homophobic legislation?

The media doesn’t seem to be asking an questions, like, could this alleged attack and the Harris legislation actually be connected? It’s quit ironic, if it wasn’t. And why not give up the cell phone to police?

Is the alleged victim trying be another social justice warrior like we’ve so many times in the past that have turned out to be fakes? They were people who conjured up a story to promote their cause using the media to get attention? What are the odds that this actor, just days after meeting with Harris, is now the national face (and a victim) for legislation linked to his alleged incident and in support of the LBGTQ community? Amazingly the media isn’t one bit bothered by these unusual things?

19 Responses to Hate Crime Victim or Something Else?

The smell of hoax is strong in this one.
In freezing cold? No surveillance camera evidence? What “chemical” was “poured” on him? And he waited 45 minutes in front of his house with the rope around his neck and still had his Subway sandwich . . . . . Add that he refused to turn over his phone and that spells another hate H O A X.

Joe, thank you for this link, it was very helpful in understanding our concerns. Chris would have probably not written what he did, had he seen this video first. It really sums up the questions the media should be asking, but won’t. This is not to say it is a false report, but it is far from a supportable claim based on these unusual events. Also I can’t find where police confirm he was attacked, as Chris says, but then again Chris doesn’t cite his source.

“Jussie Smollett, one of the stars of the television show “Empire,” was attacked by two assailants in Chicago early Tuesday morning, an incident being investigated as “a possible hate crime,” according to police”

You know, one of these days I’m gonna have to stop giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Well sure Chris, whether it was true or not, the enhancement of hate crime is something that follows the arrest. But, that aside, the bigger issue is how you automatically rallied to the side Jussy Smollet… because, why? Because he was black? So, his credibility can’t be questioned? Or was it because he was gay and anyone in your circle that dares to raise good questions is suddenly labeled a homophobe? Tell me, was this really a biased knee jerk response or did you put some critical thinking in it? I think it was a knee jerk response.

I prefer the middle ground approach. That would be the side that is free to ask fair questions and seek the truth… no matter where it may take us.

Now you are just making things up – You were so hot to trot when pointing out what you thought was fallacious reasoning, when in fact I was just asking good questions. The questions are looking better every day too.

Chris, Chris, Chris… you don’t get it. My criticism was directed at the media for writing the story as a horrific attack had occurred, not an alleged attack or that the victim claimed he was attacked, but as a statement of fact… that was absolutely attacked! Gee it so hard to get thru to you sometimes. By the way did you stop consider this may be a hoax? Did that part ever, at any time, ever enter your mind? If so you are and I are in agreement. I’m just asking the questions and pointing out odd parts of his story that seemed to be suspicious, sorry that I’m not taking the “alleged” victims story on face value like the liberal media did. I’m not saying the cops should not investigate, they should. But, they should have an open mind to all possibilities, which they have demonstrated and so should you.

Again: the police confirmed to the media that he had been attacked. That is a fact that was pointed out in the article you linked to. I cannot explain this any clearer, and the fact that you think *you* need to get through to *me* when you can’t even comprehend the facts you present is hilarious.

The police confirmed that he was attacked. The article you linked to does not state as fact that the attack was a hate crime, only that it happened. The media doesn’t need to use the word “allegedly” unless they are describing specific individuals suspected of being the attackers. You should know all of this.

Chris please cite your source that now police say he was definitely attacked. I did not say the article stated as fact that it was a hate crime, only that it was an attack. As for the use of allegedly, all news stories that I’m accustomed to reading either state the victim said or allegedly. I know of no rule limiting the use of this to specific individuals, please show your source.

As more information about the alleged hate-crime investigation began circulating on Wednesday evening, it showed that once again journalists, politicians and celebrities might have run too hard and too soon with another unfounded allegation. Much like in “The Truth About The Lincoln Memorial Incident,” accurate reporting can come only with time, but that didn’t stop media figureheads from lambasting all Trump-supporters, again.
Smollett, an actor on a television show, Empire, claimed he was attacked during the early hours on Monday by two people he could not give descriptions of, not even as to their sex. He claimed they hurled racial and homophobic insults as they assaulted him and then proceeded to pour an “unknown liquid” on him before wrapping a thin rope around his neck.
Smollett then told police he went to his friend’s apartment with the rope still around his neck and continued to wear it until police were dispatched 45 minutes later. Upon their arrival, Smollett asked them to turn off their body camera recordings. During the initial interview, no mention was made indicating that the attackers were Trump-supporters but TMZ ran the headline “Attackers Shouted ‘MAGA Country'” anyway. When police were asked to verify this, they could not, and so they followed up with Smollett, where he then stated that the perpetrators did yell the confusing sentiment.
Before waiting for more information, Kamala Harris, who had an established relationship with the actor, and Cory Booker took to Twitter, where they both offered support to the actor as well as phrasing his attack as a “modern-day lynching.” Many accused the two senators of using the incident to promote their anti-lynching legislation despite the fact that no lynching occurred, even if all of Smollett’s accusations are true.
More celebrities joined in, and articles began circulating that it was a “racially charged hate crime” even though the sexes and races of the perpetrators were not known to police or Smollett.

Wednesday evening, the AP released a statement from the Chicago police that said, “We haven’t seen anybody, at this point, matching the description he gave. Nobody looks menacing, and we didn’t find a container anywhere,” a reference to a container for the liquid that the actor said was thrown at him. This was after law enforcement reviewed hundreds of hours of surveillance recordings from dozens of businesses in the area where Smollett claimed that the attack happened. A city with almost 20,000 public cameras, indicative of an Orwellian dystopia, had captured no physical evidence that a crime had occurred.
Police later Wednesday night released two photos of “persons of interest” but did not imply that they were suspects of the attack. The grainy images showed a pair walking down a street with no distinguishing features or holding any objects, nor was Smollett in the frames. Chicago police issued the “community alert” since the pair in the video stills could not be identified and there had been an implication of a hate crime. They also reiterated that they still had no proof that confirmed Smollett’s story.
The incident sparked recollection of many alleged hate crimes that too quickly prompted social media cries of racism and anti-Trump rhetoric only to be later proved as hoaxes. Breitbart keeps a running tab of over 100 hate crime hoaxes since President Trump’s election. Smollett’s suspected attack is eerily similar to one from Massachusetts where a 20-year-old man claimed he was the victim of an assault by two racists who called out “Trump country now” during the attack. After police interviewed the “victim,” he admitted that he had made the story up to “raise awareness” of issues in the country.
It is still too early to tell whether Jussie Smollett’s claims of victimhood are true, false, or somewhere in the exaggerated middle, but that only means that it was too early for outlets like GQ and TMZ to be running stories that place blame at the feet of the president and his supporters for a crime they can’t be sure occurred.
There is a natural emotional response to tragic stories, but increasingly, people have been using them to reinforce pigeonholes that they hold on to for completely unrelated reasons – like self-proclaimed activist Alyssa Milano doubling-down on her hate toward the Covington kids, even after video evidence exonerated them, by claiming that “MAGA hats are the new white hoods of the KKK.”
Wrath is the sin that fuels anti-Trumpers’ feeling of perverse vindication when they hear that something terrible has happened and it coincides with their own philosophies. Then a complete lack of humility is present when it turns out to not be as bad as they first thought or even hoped. Stepping on someone else’s sad story as a soapbox to virtue-signal is distasteful. To do so without even confirming the story’s authenticity is ignorance. Being unable to re-evaluate when the story is proven false is dangerous.